slop-detector
Skill3 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Score a draft, page, or caption set for AI slop with a four-tier severity model instead of a flat banned-words list. Exact production narration fails outright, rhetorical scaffolds warn only when repeated, lexical tells become review prompts, and document-level patterns are diagnosed. Use when the user asks to score, audit, grade, or check text for AI tells, runs /slop-detector, or wants a pass/fail gate before publishing.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- NguyenHungCuongg/chameleon-writertheir own version, first seen Sep 30, 2026
- aplaceforallmystuff/claude-slop-detectortheir own version, first seen Jan 4, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- aplaceforallmystuff/claude-slop-detector★ 9same name
- NguyenHungCuongg/chameleon-writer★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 48
Review every contextual prompt in context: Keep the word when it is quoted, a product name, a technical term, or the precise word.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Slop Detector
Audit prose for AI slop and report findings by severity. Stop Slop tells a model what not to write; this skill checks what was written and says how bad it is.
A banned-words list fails in both directions. It flags "robust" in a sentence about a nonce implementation, and it passes a caption that says "a fresh capture, not a generic mockup." The severity model below separates the two.
Severity model
slop-detector.json in this folder is the authority. Four tiers:
| Severity | Meaning | What to do |
hard_fail | Exact, high-confidence production or process narration in reader-facing copy ("captured with Playwright", "Status in this study", "Weak spot: I didn't test") | Block publication and rewrite. A low score never rescues a hard fail. |
warn_if_repeated | Rhetorical scaffolds that can carry one real turn: mirrored "not X, it's Y" contrasts, "No X. No Y. No Z." triads, per-item disclaimers, templated roundup filler | Count across the piece. Warn only at the family's repeat threshold. |
contextual_review | Broad lexical signals: "leverage", "seamless", "here's the thing", academic connectors, empty intensifiers | Read the sentence. Quotations, code, proper names, and precise technical terms are not defects. Never auto-replace. |
structural_diagnostic | Document-level patterns: identical paragraph lengths, a dead table column, the same sentence closing every item, passive-voice density | Diagnose the cause. Never add fragments, emotion, or asymmetry to make a metric pass. |
Advisory score, counted only after context review: warn_if_repeated +2, confirmed contextual_review +1, structural_diagnostic +3, +2, or +1 by priority.
- 0 to 5: clean
- 6 to 15: needs editing
- 16+: rewrite the affected passages or structure
Truth, source fidelity, and authorial intention sit above this model. An unsupported claim or invented first-person experience blocks publication even when the score is 0.
Workflow
If the text is a file on disk, run the scanner first.
python3 scripts/scan.py draft.md python3 scripts/scan.py post.html --json python3 scripts/scan.py a.md b.md c.md # adds the sibling-boilerplate checkIt prints hard fails, warnings, structural findings, and contextual prompts, then two numbers: the score from automatic findings and the ceiling if every contextual prompt is confirmed. Matches inside quotation marks, blockquotes, and code are downgraded to
contextual_reviewautomatically.- Review every contextual prompt in context. Keep the word when it is quoted, a product name, a technical term, or the precise word. Confirm it only when the sentence would be better without it. Recompute the score from confirmed findings.
- Run the structural checks the scanner cannot. Symmetric pros and cons, an FAQ entry that restates an H2, and boilerplate shared across sibling articles need a reader. The scanner names these as manual checks.
- If there is no file, do the pass by hand. Load references/banned-phrases.md for the phrase families and references/ai-tells.md for the 28 structural, language, rhythm, content, and teaching tells. Apply the same four tiers.
- Report, then fix the cause. For each confirmed finding give the severity, the quoted evidence, why it hurts this reader, and the smallest durable fix. Fix rhythm by following the thought, not by inserting one-word sentences. Fix a dead column by deleting it and stating the fact once. Fix a hard fail by naming what the image or result shows and nothing about how it was made.
For captions and alt text alone, scripts/check-assets.py post.html runs only the hard-fail production-commentary patterns and exits 1 on any hit. It is built for CI.
Output format
HARD FAIL (1)
production_commentary: "captured with Playwright" [block 14, figcaption]
Fix: "Semrush's affiliate program page inside Impact."
warn_if_repeated (1) +2
repeated_scaffolds/mirrored_contrast: 3 occurrences, threshold 2
contextual_review (4) review before counting
broad_lexical_tells: "robust" [block 9] -> technical term, keep
...
Advisory score: 2 (clean) from automatic findings; ceiling 6 (needs editing) if every prompt is confirmed.Lead with the verdict. If nothing actionable is present, say so in one line.
What this skill does not do
- It does not fact-check. A clean score says nothing about whether a price, version, or quote is true.
- It does not detect authorship. Humans write slop too, and the tells are evidence to inspect, not proof a model wrote the text.
- It does not rewrite. Pair it with
stop-slopfor drafting rules andred-penfor a line edit. - It does not reward roughness. Fragments, typos, and performed asides are tells of their own (see ai-tells.md, Authorial Intention Tells).
Regression tests
python3 scripts/test-severity.pyThe test locks the contract: only production_commentary and the always_fail group of process_leakage may hard-fail, broad lexical matches stay contextual, scaffolds warn only past their thresholds, and the score bands do not drift. Run it after any edit to slop-detector.json.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

